Primary Navigation

Re: Response to Karl

Hey Tom, you state... ... analytical process. However my point is that it is a structured art- form that has natural tendencies which gives it certain

Message 1 of 2
, Jan 10, 2005

0 Attachment

Hey Tom, you state...

>>>"I certainly did not mean to imply that music is a strictly

analytical process. However my point is that it is a structured art-
form that has natural tendencies which gives it certain
expectations."<<<

True, and I believe this was also the way the traditional groups we
are talking about saw their initiatory process. It has become quite
popular in sensationalist writings intended for popular consumption
to see them reinterperate "Gnosis" as an entirely personal and
relativistic notion. I believe this misconception comes from the
assumption that the "know thyself" maxim meant back then exactly the
same as it does in the modern popular sense.

>>>"I did not think I implied that the Orthodox was so removed from

the Gnostic. I think there are both subtle and profound differences.
These differences separate the Gnostic from the Orthodox, and the
boundaries are not yet fully understood. Certainly, we cannot look at
Orthodox ideas and align them with ideas inherently Gnostic and not
see they are part of a separate epistemology."<<<

And yet, there was Valentinus, right in and amongst the "Orthodox"
Christians. It is quite clear that they did not see themselves as
seperate, only at a higher level in the initiatory process of the
same movement as the "Orthodox" Christians.

>>>"Clement isn't Gnostic? In my opinion Clement is 'the' Gnostic who

preserves the 'hidden' in his works in "Stromata." This text is as
close to "Gnosticism for Dummies" as can be found. Clement's
description of Craftsmen being Gnostics is a plain 'slam dunk' to
linking what he calls Craftsmen, with what Acts, and Pauline letters
describe as 'gifted' or Pneumatics. These are clearly descriptions of
Gnostics. These brief descriptions tell us little, but it does tell
us they were there."<<<

Well, I could argue that Gnosticism was not meant for Dummies *lol*.
Seriously though, I understand that your personal definition
of "Gnosticism" incudes groups outside the more technical usage of
the term. On the other hand, Clement was quit explicit in his hatred
of other groups that didn't fit his ethical or theological or
soteriological model.

>>>"If Davies is correct about the link of Thomas to the I-Ching, and

I think he is more than he knows, we can link some information about
Thomas to the fundamentals in this system of philosophy. The I-Ching,
is linked to sound fundamentals, and is not all soothsaying. It is
based upon sound ideas of duality. What I see the Gnostics added to
these perceptions of the world, is their outlook on the human flaw as
seen in the Hylic (choikus, salkas, etc.) - Psychic- Pneumatic
perception of the hierarchy of Gnostic attainment. Gnostic
attainment can be measured, and aligned with the degree of mastership
one has in the "Crafts.""<<<

It is ok to speculate, but I do draw the line at the Da Vinci code
kind of sensationalism. Even though I think the direction you have
taken previously has some interesting areas to open for
conversation.... I can't converse if we are going to go off the deep
end here. So, I hope you are not trying to tell me that Freemasons
and the I Ching are actually "Gnosticism". Perhaps I misunderstood
you there, so I will wait for clerification.

>>>"Hello! No, Clement wasn't Gnostic, hell no! He wasn't at least

until we had Thomas, and the NHL. Now we have to understand what
Clement was talking about was exploring the human potential and using
it....."<<<

Perhaps, but this is irrelevant as to whether he was Gnostic. In
order to fit the category of "Gnosticism", you need to demonstrate a
couple of things. One, you need to show that he used the cosmology of
Gnosticism, including a destinction between the Demiurge and the
spiritual source (with the latter being a system of emenations from a
single apophatic source). Two, you need to demonstrate that instead
of Gnosis being the begining of the soteriological process, it is the
end.

After this point you went on to talk about the notion of being
the "Craftsmen", but you did not answer my question about where you
got the term.... nor my point concerning the fact that the word had
negative meaning for many Gnostics. I am taking this moment to remind
you. Without that I can't concede the term as more than an arbitrary
quality you are attempting to eisegetically intropolate. This becomes
very problematic after the possibility that you seemed to also be
reading other religious outlines into "Gnosticism" in a sort of
Jungian manner. I will be happy if I am wrong on this matter, but I
do have a fear that this conversation may be starting to resemble
the "Jesus Mysteries" rather than a sober understanding of Gnosticism
as it was really understood by the historical practitioners.

Karl

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.